I have a serious question asked in a spirit of love and genuine curiosity. I’d like to understand how others think. If you would like to comment, I’d love to hear what you have to say, but only if you can be civil, respectful and mature. If I consider your comment to me or anyone else as disrespectful, I’ll simply delete it. So if you’d like your comment to be heard—be mature.
*************
I’ve observed for a number of years that “tolerance” has been elevated to the highest virtue in our culture. And tolerance appears to mean that all worldviews are valid and no one has the right to judge anyone else.
So my question is this: What happens when opposing worldviews collide?
Who wins then?
For example, if someone supports gay marriage, but also says a Muslim should have the right to live under Sharia Law…what do we tell the Muslim who believes they are commanded to punish and even execute homosexuals?
I’ve read articles and have seen pictures recently of ISIS throwing gay men from the roofs of tall buildings. If they don’t die immediately (and some don’t), then there’s a waiting crowd below ready to stone them to death. Yesterday, ISIS even used the hashtag #LoveWins in one of their tweets.
If you’re like me, the thought of throwing someone from a building or stoning them for being gay is sickening. Am I allowed to say that’s wrong? If so, on what basis? Simply because I believe it’s wrong? But others believe it’s right.
Who wins then?
Someone may say, “Well, not all Muslims are like that.” And I would completely agree with you. I have a good friend who is Muslim. I love him like a brother. I know he would also say it’s wrong to kill someone for being gay.
Someone may say, “ISIS is wrong. They have to learn to be tolerant of other beliefs.” But what if they say their beliefs specifically tell them to not tolerate homosexuality?
Who wins then?
When competing worldviews come into conflict—how do we decide the winner?
Does the government get to decide? What if the government says we should exterminate Jews? (Nazi Germany)
What if the government says women can’t drive cars (Saudi Arabia) or leave the house without a husband’s permission (Afghanistan)?
If it’s not the government, then is it the majority? What if the majority says you shouldn’t be allowed to own two cars, because some people (in the majority) don’t have any?
If it’s not the government or the majority, then is it the individual? What if, as an individual, I believe it’s okay for me to steal your new television because…well, I just want it?
You may say I’m not allowed to steal your television, because I’m hurting you or infringing on your rights, but who are you to judge me? I think you’re hurting me by not allowing me to practice my religion of television-stealing. Stop being so intolerant and hand me the remote!
Am I a bigot if I believe it’s sick to throw homosexuals off buildings?
Am I being narrow-minded if I think it’s wrong to tell women they’re not allowed to travel without a male escort or wear bikinis if they want to?
Am I judgmental because I believe genital-mutilation of young girls is disgusting?
Don’t be too quick to exonerate me. Because by believing those things, I’m disagreeing with the beliefs of others. And that makes me intolerant.
What happens when opposing worldviews collide?
Who wins then?
Very thought-provoking post.
Bottom line – I believe love wins.
People who claim to be 100% tolerant of all beliefs? I don’t believe it’s possible (primarily bc of the underlying issues you’ve raised…something’s gotta give…either tolerance for 1 of the opposing beliefs will crack, or the opposing beliefs will collide & erode each other)
I appreciate everyone’s comments and agree with what’s been said.
What I’m still interested in understanding though is how the person who values tolerance of all beliefs will handle beliefs that are in conflict.
The legalization of gay marriage and the ongoing terror attacks by ISIS are fresh on everyone’s minds, so those provide a current, real-life example.
I heard someone interviewed who believed Sharia Law should apply to everyone, not just Muslims. He stated clearly that homosexuals should be killed if they committed “acts” in public. I’m assuming that would include holding hands or kissing. We’re actually seeing ISIS fighters carrying out this worldview.
In the United States, we’ve now said gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. And yet, Sharia Law mandates the punishment of homosexuals.
I’ll use a hypothetical example, but I predict the day is coming in the United States when it will no longer be hypothetical…
Will a gay couple be able to buy a house in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood?
The gay couple would be offended by the suggestion they couldn’t.
The Muslim population would be offended by their homosexuality.
So who wins?
Great blog post. Definitely useful food for thought. These are weighty issues to ponder and I think Christians in general are too quick to fall back on a pat and safe answer and not really wrestle these things through. I think Rob has said it best so I say hearty “dittoes” to his answer.
Thanks Gregg – well written. I’ll give my two cents, as I don’t think there have been enough people commenting on this subject on social media so far.
I think this issue was actually lost long ago and the fact that the decision went the way it did, squarely rests on Christians and the Christian Church.
We are waging a war and that means there are battles to be fought, and this particular “battle” as so many are, was merely a distraction from what is really going on. Christians too often believe that other people are the actual enemy – that leaves us fighting battles in the wrong arena against the wrong enemy. Basically, the Christian Church in America has been so distracted, that it often finds itself fighting the wrong enemy and we’re not even in the right arena.
Let’s say we are in one of those war movies we’ve seen so many times: We are a small platoon, completely outnumbered and outgunned by the much larger and well equipped enemy. Do we rush out to meet them in the open, giving them plenty of time to wipe us out? No, we wait for the precise moment to strike – we don’t let the enemy know they are even in a battle until it’s too late!
So, how did so much of the Christian Church fight this “battle” – out in the open, in the media, in the political arena, on facebook – Far too many were heard screaming “your’e bad; this is wrong; it’s against God and the Bible – etc.”
The problem is – this could have gone a different direction if only we knew who our real enemy was and followed Jesus advice on how to beat him. We should spend our time getting to know God and trying to be more like him; Next, we should be doing what he said – loving others: Feeding and clothing the poor, healing the sick – basically, serving our neighbor.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t believe tolerance in many cases equals love, nor do I believe it is in this case – I believe tolerance is the opposite of love so many times. But we weren’t fighting the right battle. We are supposed to win the war one heart at a time. Jesus gave us a very clear message – for those hurting and in need, first serve that need at hand; Then take care of the next one; After their needs have been met, there is the opportunity for their hearts to change. Until someone is a fellow Christian, we should not be out there trying to correct their behavior, and the worst place of all is the political arena. Only when a person is a Christian, should we begin showing them how to “take the speck out of their eye”. Jesus displayed this at the well.
This battle has been lost over many decades. How? The one major argument or premise of Christians – That God ordained marriage, between a man and a woman, and made it sacred – well, look at the divorce rate of Christians. So, our whole argument was made completely moot – by us!
So, had the Christian Church and each individual Christian, been working more on loving God and our neighbor, focusing on saving our marriages and families – well, then we would have had a leg to stand on. And, had we spent the last few decades out there constantly serving our neighbors, well, then how many more millions and millions of lives would have experienced changed – then, public opinion would have gone the other way on this; the outcomes of elections would have been different.
Jesus showed us how to fight the war and who are enemy is, and we haven’t carried this out well at all in this country. So, to me, both “sides” were and are deceived by the true enemy – this was nothing but a distractions to keep us from seeing him.
When what we should be doing is winning one heart at a time for God, quietly. The best way to beat an enemy is to win the war before the battle even begins, and one person at a time is how to do it. Not, out in the open screaming to the enemy “look at me”.
Evolutionarily speaking “the strongest survive.” [AKA “might makes right”] If we are merely animals, then this should be the law of the land. But humans have the ability to rise above simple animal urges and subscribe to higher principles. That’s the purpose of cultures and communities. But human nature is deeply flawed and people are very different, so they will naturally disagree on what represents the highest good. So what we see today, and yesterday, and tomorrow, is that the people with political power always use violence and duress to force others to submit. So we’re back to “might makes right.” We are both victims and victimizers of our own human nature. The only way out, I think, is for all of mankind to submit to a higher authority. But even the Bible is clear that this will not happen until Christ returns and every knee bows! But we can take comfort that eventually, everything will be set right!
Well, I realize that this response doesn’t totally answer the question. However, in light of recent events, it seems relevant. The Bible is clear that the sin I should be most concerned with is my own. I am content to let the government determine laws that protect everyone as long as they are fairly enforced.
I believe that God taught us to love one another no matter what and try live my life that way. The ones that steal or do harm to others will be judged by him, not me. God Bless you and your family.
Very Deep Thinking….
Mrs. Coller… I agree with you..
I try to live my life by the standards that God Word is truth.. Knowing He is the final Judge of us all gives me peach and comfort. I cannot change the views or actions of others, but I can pray for them and their salvation. Bless you, Greg for the courage you have and share with your blog
Love in Christ….
This is why God gave us a standard of right and wrong. Those who truly need the answers to your question are the ones who either don’t know about God’s standards or aren’t willing to align their lives to them and are looking for another way.
Matt, thanks for your comment. Here’s where it gets tough…we can argue that stealing someone’s property is harming them, but that’s a belief you and I share. Many people don’t share that belief. If they want your stuff, then who are we to say they can’t have it? They believe we’re harming them by preventing them from taking what they want.
And if the government decides right and wrong, then I hope the day doesn’t come when the NSA passes on my emails to law enforcement because they don’t like the content of my private emails.
Thanks again for your comment.
Gregg
A very interesting thought, and one I have had myself. These are of course the extreme cases in order to drive the point home, but they do the trick. I think the idea is to let someone practice their beliefs, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon others rights. And yes, in a legal sense the government IS the one to decide.
I think its pretty easy to argue how physically hurting someone or stealing their property would be harming someone, but things get into grayer area when you consider everything that would not be doing any direct damage to someone else. (This isn’t to be passive aggressive) Do we allow legalization of : all drugs, suicide, incest, and marriage to any family member? I am a believer in the bible, but I do not believe our laws should prevent two men or woman to get married even though its not aligned with my personal beliefs. Where in our laws would these other things be outlawed as well?
I dont have the answers.